Yes, that's what the Foreign Affaris manual states.
However, the 1971 SCOTUS decision in Rogers v. Bellei clearly states that citizenship granted at birth to those born abroad:
Then follows a most significant sentence:"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
...
Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process.The decision in Rogers v. Bellei leaves me with the impression that there is legal precedent for declaring that citizenship granted at birth by Congress is an act of naturalization and therefore is not equivalent to natural-born citizen within the meaning of the constitution. I'll have to give it some serious thought and research other cases.
H/T to Red Steel for pointing me to Rogers v. Bellei.
Like this tidbit.
"Savornan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 338 U.S. 500 (1950); N. Bar-Yaacov, Duel Nationality xi and 4 (1961). These problems are particularly acute when it is the father who is the child's alien parent and the father chooses to have his family reside in the country of his own nationality. The child reared, at best, in an atmosphere of divided loyalty. We cannot say that a concern that the child's own primary allegaince is to the country of his birth and of his father's allegiance is either misplaced or arbitrary."
This means that 14th amendment citizenship was not the question with Bellei. His citizenship was based on birth abroad to a US parent and that was under the purview of Congress, based on the authority given them in the US Constitution.
Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship,
In the case of Bellei, who had refused to observe the requirements of the law for retaining his citizenship, the US stripped him of his citizenship. He wanted that ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the law that he could be stripped.
The italics above is simple recognition that in bloodline citizenship that Congress is empowered by the US Constitution to make what it considers to be reasonable law.
Therefore, the law it makes on this subject is binding.
The current law says the following are both nationals and citizens at birth (item (g) is the case of Ted Cruz):
INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899
Some have made that argument, and it is not entirely without validity.
However, it is clear that the Framers who took their seats in the original First Congress, together with President George Washington, both specified quite clearly that such children should be "considered as natural born citizens" (meaning, obviously, that they would be equally eligible to be elected President on meeting the other qualifications to the office), and believed that Congress's Constitutional power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" extended to declaring that such children could be natural born citizens eligible to be President.
It is also clear that James Bayard, writing in 1833, stated with absolute clarity that birth on US soil was not necessary for Presidential eligibility; that being born a citizen was enough.
It is also clear that Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was reviewed by Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent and other distinguished legal experts of the early United States, and no one found any fault with his interpretation of "natural born citizen."
Bayard also had another line into the thoughts of the Founders and Framers: His maternal grandfather was Richard Bassett, one of the Signers of the Constitution, who was also the most senior member of the First Congress. He was given the ranks of "Senator #1" of the United States.
It is also clear that no significant legal authority in history has ever drawn any real distinction between "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen."
Some years ago, a legal scholar named Jill Pryor wrote an article in which she characterized such children as "naturalized-born."
After all the talk on the subject, I find that characterization to be reasonable enough.
Having studied the roots of the entire phrase quite extensively now, I find the dissent in Wong to be generally out of touch with many of the historical meanings and principles. But there is at least one point on which I agree with Chief Justice Fuller's dissent.
Fuller said it was unreasonable to think that the children born on US soil of Mongolian parents were eligible to the Presidency, and the children born abroad to US citizens were not. I agree.
All of this has a very simple and obvious answer. Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen by birth, a natural born citizen and eligible to the Presidency.
Ted Cruz is a US citizen by birth, therefore a natural born citizen and eligible to the Presidency.
It matters not that Wong's natural born citizen status came a bit more directly, via the common law and perhaps the 14th Amendment, and that Cruz's natural born citizen status came through the Constitutional authority of Congress to define, at their discretion, which persons born abroad would also be citizens by birth, natural born citizens.
The Constitution, in effect, has authorized both routes.
And how do I know that the Constitution has authorized both routes - the common law and the discretion of Congress through its power to define a uniform rule of naturalization?
I know it because the men who Signed that Constitution clearly believed that was what the document meant.
If they had not believed that, then they (with President Washington) would never have specified, during the course of the First Congress, that the children born overseas to US citizens were themselves "to be considered as natural-born Citizens."
That's my 2c.